PA Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lower Merion Preemption Appeal

For those that have been following FOAC's challenge to Lower Merion's unlawful firearm possession and discharge regulations, today the PA Supreme Court has declined to hear Lower Merion's Petition for Allowance of Appeal - https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/07/1...m-regulations/

So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parrisk

So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?

---

From what I read on the blog, it appears LM has no standing in the matter any more. And, to answer your question, Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parrisk

So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?

---

Yes and they cannot regulate discharge of a firearm on their properties.

As one of your critics in the past, your recent victories in court have been great. Hopefully a few more come.

I wonder if the lawful/unlawful distinction could be used to axe the stolen gun reporting requirements some municipalities enact since they claim they're only regulating unlawful possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreadPirateMoyer

As one of your critics in the past, your recent victories in court have been great. Hopefully a few more come.

I wonder if the lawful/unlawful distinction could be used to axe the stolen gun reporting requirements some municipalities enact since they claim they're only regulating unlawful possession.

---

Thanks. I have a couple more in the pipeline, including whether a 302 is constitutionally sufficient to strip someone of a constitutional right - i.e. right to keep and bear arms.

Lost and stolen was already dealt with by the Commonwealth Court and held to be violative of Section 6120 in Clarke v. House of Representatives, 957 A.2d 361 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2008). In both Clarke and National Rifle Ass’n v. City of Philadelphia, 977 A.2d 78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) the Commonwealth Court held that local government cannot regulate even consistent with the UFA.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...no_400x400.pnghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...8079575306.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parrisk

So not being a lawyer and such... Preemption was upheld and the Township cannot control or post signage against the legal carry of firearms on their properties?

---

In 2011, Lower Merion Township (Township) passed an ordinance amending section 109-16 of its Code (Ordinance)
to prohibit persons from “carry[ing] or discharg[ing] firearms of any kind in a park without a special permit, unless exempted.” Lower Merion To
wnship, Pa., Code §109-16. The Ordinance imposes a maximum fine of $600.00 per violation and authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks or recreation areas.

They can't use governmental power to regulate gun possession. But see Footnote 9 of the Erie case.

Well done Mr. Prince! Thank you for all that you do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

[I]
They can't use governmental power to regulate gun possession. But see Footnote 9 of the Erie case.

---

I know much to your disappointment, Lower Merion did argue, consistent with FN 9, that they were permitted to regulate as a private property owner and the Commonwealth Court ruled against them, although the author of FN 9, Judge Pellegrini, filed a dissenting opinion stating that they should be able to regulate as a private property owner. On their Petition of Allowance of Appeal, Lower Merion again, now with support from Harrisburg and Philadelphia as an Amici, focused on their right to regulate as a private property owner and the PA Supreme Court wasn't inclined to agree with them, so the Court declined to hear their appeal. It sure would be nice if others would submit amici briefs in OUR favor at least from time to time - but, alas, it seems like I am the only one that gives significant amounts of my time to the cause to ensure that our rights are protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I know much to your disappointment, Lower Merion did argue, consistent with FN 9, that they were permitted to regulate as a private property owner and the Commonwealth Court ruled against them, although the author of FN 9, Judge Pellegrini, filed a dissenting opinion stating that they should be able to regulate as a private property owner. On their Petition of Allowance of Appeal, Lower Merion again, now with support from Harrisburg and Philadelphia as an Amici, focused on their right to regulate as a private property owner and the PA Supreme Court wasn't inclined to agree with them, so the Court declined to hear their appeal. It sure would be nice if others would submit amici briefs in OUR favor at least from time to time - but, alas, it seems like I am the only one that gives significant amounts of my time to the cause to ensure that our rights are protected.

---

The court ruled against them because the ordinance used their police power, allowed for a fine, and authorized the cops to remove them.

"Additionally, it is not clear whether the Ordinance was promulgated pursuant to the Township’s police powers or based on its rights as a property owner; however, the fact that the Ordinance authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks suggests the Township’s police power is the basis for the Ordinance rather than its property-owner rights.
Therefore, the Township’s argument that Firearm Owners’ right to relief is not clear based on its authority to regulate its parks as a property owner pursuant to Wolfe is unpersuasive."

I won't address your last claim because it's self-evidently false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I won't address your last claim because it's self-evidently false.

---

Always funny when someone plays Monday morning quarterback, who neither participated in the game nor watched it. And, if you were insinuating that you have filed amicus briefs in the PA appellate courts, it is interesting that the appellate court dockets don't have you ever having handled an appellate issue, let alone an amicus brief. Everyone can check by simply going to the UJS Portal https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Docket...Appellate.aspx and then under docket sheets, clicking appellate courts. Then change the search type by court name and select the appellate court - Supreme, Commonwealth or Superior. One can then search merely by attorney name. Using your name, for each court, reflects no records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SigForLife

Always funny when someone plays Monday morning quarterback, who neither participated in the game nor watched it. And, if you were insinuating that you have filed amicus briefs in the PA appellate courts, it is interesting that the appellate court dockets don't have you ever having handled an appellate issue, let alone an amicus brief. Everyone can check by simply going to the UJS Portal https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Docket...Appellate.aspx and then under docket sheets, clicking appellate courts. Then change the search type by court name and select the appellate court - Supreme, Commonwealth or Superior. One can then search merely by attorney name. Using your name, for each court, reflects no records.

---

You failed to correct the post that assumed that the case meant that no municipality was now allowed to post their parks "no guns", so I corrected it.

I said what I said, I insinuated nothing. I and other lawyers have done a lot for the cause, without the self-publicizing and self-congratulation that we sometimes see from you. There are plenty of ways to help PA gun owners, and they don't all involve headlines or cash or eliminating 302 relief. And I have never been sued by co-counsel. And lost.

Would you like to stop now, and just focus on accurate statements about the case? That's where I started here. Your case didn't reject the municipal property argument, it held that it didn't apply to these facts. Kind of like I said back in 2006, right here on PAFOA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

The court ruled against them because the ordinance used their police power, allowed for a fine, and authorized the cops to remove them.

"Additionally, it is not clear whether the Ordinance was promulgated pursuant to the Township’s police powers or based on its rights as a property owner; however, the fact that the Ordinance authorizes the police to remove violators from Township parks suggests the Township’s police power is the basis for the Ordinance rather than its property-owner rights.
Therefore, the Township’s argument that Firearm Owners’ right to relief is not clear based on its authority to regulate its parks as a property owner pursuant to Wolfe is unpersuasive."

I won't address your last claim because it's self-evidently false.

---

Funny, you seem to leave out of your snip-it, the preceding statement by the Court "Rather, the UFA explicitly prohibits a township from regulating 'in any manner' and contains no express exemptions authorizing a township to enact ordinances permitting firearm regulation on its property, i.e., parks, comparable to that contained in the Game Law."

Dudes.
You are both rock stars to our community and beyond.
You both do excellent work that benefits us all.
As a guy who wishes he could do more but can't, I very much appreciate what you guys do.
As do many, many other people.
There is still plenty of fight left to do out there.
No sense in wasting the fight in here.
Respectfully,
Berncly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berncly

Dudes.
You are both rock stars to our community and beyond.
You both do excellent work that benefits us all.
As a guy who wishes he could do more but can't, I very much appreciate what you guys do.
As do many, many other people.
There is still plenty of fight left to do out there.
No sense in wasting the fight in here.
Respectfully,
Berncly

---

That's a lot more mature than the "Lawyer Fight" comment I was tempted to throw out there.

So, I can now OC instead of CC at the LM park my kid plays at? Cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by internet troll

That's a lot more mature than the "Lawyer Fight" comment I was tempted to throw out there.

---

...and a little more mature than wanting to hear more about being sued by co-counsel and losing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SigForLife

Funny, you seem to leave out of your snip-it, the preceding statement by the Court "Rather, the UFA explicitly prohibits a township from regulating 'in any manner' and contains no express exemptions authorizing a township to enact ordinances permitting firearm regulation on its property, i.e., parks, comparable to that contained in the Game Law."

---

Signs are not "ordinances". The snippet you posted doesn't contradict my point at all. Telling people that they are free to ignore "no guns" signs in municipal parks is not backed up by this case. This case stands for the old proposition that municipalities can't enact ordinances that restrict our gun rights.

What I posted back in 2006:

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...ge=7#post15891

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by internet troll

That's a lot more mature than the "Lawyer Fight" comment I was tempted to throw out there.

---

You too? Last person I want to peeve is a lawyer, so I didn't. :rolleyes:

What I've never understood, is how a Township could be considered a property owner if it's public property. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockIsland

You too? Last person I want to peeve is a lawyer, so I didn't. :rolleyes:

What I've never understood, is how a Township could be considered a property owner if it's public property. :confused:

---

The Township owns the property.

The people own the Township, making it public.

IANAL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sgt.K

The Township owns the property.

The people own the Township, making it public.

IANAL

---

Wouldnt that make the people the owners of the property? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockIsland

Wouldnt that make the people the owners of the property? :confused:

---

Hard to fit all of their names on the deed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluetrane2028

So, I can now OC instead of CC at the LM park my kid plays at? Cool.

---

Ummmmm can we can an answer here?
Inquiring minds want to know!

My wife and I don't usually do the same things to benefit the family. No need for both of us to mow the lawn when one can mow the lawn and the other can do something else to benefit the family. Then at the end of the day when the work is done and I've done what I did and she's done what she did we hold hands.

I know you two aren't married to each other but there's no reason to disparage the other because they aren't doing what you are. You do what you do to make yourself happy and the family appreciates it.

You know why they make more than 1 type of ice cream? Because not everyone likes the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donotknowme

My wife and I don't usually do the same things to benefit the family. No need for both of us to mow the lawn when one can mow the lawn and the other can do something else to benefit the family. Then at the end of the day when the work is done and I've done what I did and she's done what she did we hold hands.

I know you two aren't married to each other but there's no reason to disparage the other because they aren't doing what you are. You do what you do to make yourself happy and the family appreciates it.

You know why they make more than 1 type of ice cream? Because not everyone likes the same thing.

---

It's kind of funny how I read every one of your posts in Ralph Wiggums voice.

Does any level of government have the power to own property?

Where is that power derived in the Constitution from the people? Perhaps with certain exceptions but maybe we should desire that a government can never own property. Rent, borrow, manage perhaps. But not own. Ownership leaves us open to the concept of socialism, where the government owns most or communism, where the government owns all. Perhaps the only organizations that could own property are corporations / businesses.

Just throwing that out for now. Wondering what others may think. Take away the ownership claim and this quandary of who can control said property, even against individual rights, goes away.

Article 4 section 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaePo

Does any level of government have the power to own property?

Where is that power derived in the Constitution from the people? Perhaps with certain exceptions but maybe we should desire that a government can never own property. Rent, borrow, manage perhaps. But not own. Ownership leaves us open to the concept of socialism, where the government owns most or communism, where the government owns all. Perhaps the only organizations that could own property are corporations / businesses.

Just throwing that out for now. Wondering what others may think. Take away the ownership claim and this quandary of who can control said property, even against individual rights, goes away.

---

I hear ya, it burns my biscuits to see those signs that say no trespassing, state property. Usually alongside a nice fishing hole or some reclaimed mine property. Who is "the state"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sgt.K

The Township owns the property.

The people own the Township, making it public.

IANAL

---

That's not usually how Judges rule on things. They rule according to whoever ponies up the most for reelection campaign funds. Since when is registration not registration? A: when the money says it isn't registration. Follow the money and find the ruling.

The collective population never had much time for firearms. With their 23 square miles and 60,000 population there is not one gun store or range, they even closed their police range opting for a county facility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacodelahoya

I hear ya, it burns my biscuits to see those signs that say no trespassing, state property. Usually alongside a nice fishing hole or some reclaimed mine property. Who is "the state"?

---

This reminds me of Centralia.

Who is mowing the grass up there these days ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berncly

Dudes.
You are both rock stars to our community and beyond.
You both do excellent work that benefits us all.
As a guy who wishes he could do more but can't, I very much appreciate what you guys do.
As do many, many other people.
There is still plenty of fight left to do out there.
No sense in wasting the fight in here.
Respectfully,
Berncly

---

Always good to have a little professional debate.

Keeps everybody sharp and on their toes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carson

This reminds me of Centralia.

Who is mowing the grass up there these days ?

---

Same people that mow the grass during the zombie apocalypse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by streaker69

Same people that mow the grass during the zombie apocalypse?

---

What would you call an undead guy who keeps the grass trimmed?

Attachment 99060

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

What would you call an undead guy who keeps the grass trimmed?

Attachment 99060

---

A no-tax paying half breed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nate7667

A no-tax paying half breed?

---

...with a big ass sword...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by streaker69

Same people that mow the grass during the zombie apocalypse?

---

I was thinking more like John Lokitis. Wasn't he one of the last remaining residents and mowed the grass around the VFW property ?